get_work_market

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: offers are filtered locally on the first upstream page, meaning results are a bounded subset rather than an exhaustive market scan. It also draws a clear scope line at wage facts only. It does not mention rate limits or return shape, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and followed by the two constraints an agent most needs. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the primary return (wage benchmark plus offers) and the important caveat that offer filtering is local to one upstream page. It could say more about what the wage benchmark contains or how the offer set is ordered, but nothing essential to a correct call is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, item_code, region_id, player_context and minimum_net_wage are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the loose notion of 'one item' and 'matching offers', which does not extend parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('get the wage benchmark for one item') plus the accompanying payload (matching work offers). This clearly separates it from price-oriented siblings like get_market_price and search_market, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage through scope boundaries ('reports wage facts only and does not assess eligibility or suitability'), which tells the agent what this tool is not for. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition or pointer to a sibling when the agent wants prices or eligibility rather than wages.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.